142 thoughts on “TV News report on Penn State’s Mann”

When exactly will Penn State’s review of the case be complete?
It’s really not that complicated.
Let us here at WUWT clustersource any difficulties you may be having and delaying the report on your investigation.
Please submit all e-mail and data you have concerning the investigation immediately so we can help you expedite the investigation in a timely manner.

How refreshing. An investigation that doesn’t drag on for years. We will know what they’ve learned by the end of the month. I hope the university understands that it’s best interests are not necessarily served by bowing to the huge amounts of research funding that have been awarded in this particular case.

The spokesman for the Commonwealth Foundation accused Mann of destroying data. I’m not sure there was any evidence of that in the emails. Anyone recall anything like that being discussed in the emails? Or Mann being accused of that in other circumstances?

@ Michael (19:08:33) : the video stated that the investigation was due to be completed by the end of the month.

I have a suspision that the elections in November might have a great deal to do with the status of any investigation performed both concerning Dr. Mann and very possibly one that might be aimed at Dr. Schmidt. (I hope that is spelled correctly). There may very well be a new “consensus” that truly makes a difference after November. We shall have to wait and see.

For reference, the TV station in question covers perhaps the largest concentration of Penn State fans/alums, who are in the Harrisburg area.
Of course Harrisburg is also the PA capital city, so the legislator who is head of the Education Committee is also shown. He has already sent word to Penn State that if a satisfactory review is not made, the legislators may take action.

Also for what it is worth – WHTM is the local Harrisburg, PA ABC TV station. It has traditionally had strong coverage of Penn State sports in South Central PA.
The individual delivering that news has been a long time sports reporter and has covered Penn State. WHTM’s broadcast range does not however extend to the main Penn State campus, which is farther north in University Park, PA. Just to clarify the comment about PSU and Harrisburg being in the same DMA. Maybe so, but the TV broadcast signal does not extend from Harrisburg to the main campus and PSU broadcasts do not reach Harrisburg.

Although Michael Mann should be held accountable for his actions, the real culprits are those politicians and NAS members who used their control over federal research funds to train literally thousands of scientists to respond to promises of research grants the way that Pavlov’s dogs responded to promises of dog biscuits.

I have a suspision that the elections in November might have a great deal to do with the status of any investigation performed both concerning Dr. Mann and very possibly one that might be aimed at Dr. Schmidt. (I hope that is spelled correctly). There may very well be a new “consensus” that truly makes a difference after November. We shall have to wait and see.

Bill Derryberry

One should always hope for the best and expect the worst.

If climategate still exists as an issue in November, I will be very pleasantly surprised.

The truth will come out? Are they blind? The truth has already come out for all to see. Only the blind can’t see it. Mann should be trialled for fraud. The evidence is clear. Just needs to be taken to a court of law.

I just went over to Wikipedia to view the Climategate page…I wish I hadn’t. The page is now called “Climatic Research Unit hacking incident”, presents as a ‘fact’ that the emails were hacked, and uses Mann’s defense of ‘trick’ and ‘hide the decline’ verbatim, despite Wikipedia’s rules about no primary sources.

I don’t mind Mann’s smile. If the university looks at Mann’s emails at Penn State and finds more of this stuff on trying to delete emails to foil a Freedom of Information request how can they whitewash it? Wouldn’t they be afraid it could come out later in a congressional hearing or perhaps a future leak? Maybe the question is whether Penn State should have the right to examine Mann’s emails at their university.

I think this is a lesson for all of us to learn. We may not claim this for ourselves but we should. Belief trumps data. There are those among us skeptics whose hands are in this same cookie jar. The data isn’t there but we believe anyway.

Can we be as skeptical of our belief in own point of view as we are of AGW? If not, we are no better theorists than the ones being investigated. Do I believe it’s the Sun? The oceans? Land use? Planetary gravity? Atmospheric oscillations? Cozmos’ moon? How well would my theory hold up under such a white hot magnifying glass?

With any investigation, if the possible results include damage to the hierachy (investigators, uni boards etc) a level of whitwash will occur, even if to delay the truth long enough to allow some future wriggle room for the hierachy.
If however any possible benefit is to be gained by the hierachy, then a whitewash is less likely. I think I made sense.

e.g. “All the evidence provided to us by the experts point to weapons of mass destruction” etc

That’s the liberal smirk, they all do it. It is based on a false self-assement of their intelligence. If you find a large picture of the expression, cover the mouth and look at the eyes, then cover the eyes and look at the mouth. They don’t match, Dr. Paul Ekman has a book on that covers what that mismatch signals.

Pamela Gray (20:46:33) :
“I think this is a lesson for all of us to learn. We may not claim this for ourselves but we should. Belief trumps data. There are those among us skeptics whose hands are in this same cookie jar. The data isn’t there but we believe anyway.
Can we be as skeptical of our belief in own point of view as we are of AGW? If not, we are no better theorists than the ones being investigated. Do I believe it’s the Sun? The oceans? Land use? Planetary gravity? Atmospheric oscillations? Cozmos’ moon? How well would my theory hold up under such a white hot magnifying glass?”

Great points.

Which is why, at the end of the day, no matter what the truth turns up, our highest responsibility is to the truth of the matter, whatever it may be.

Which is why one must always take the time to stand outside oneself and try to examine what you know and what you believe….and to be able to dispassionately distinguish between the two.

The SM at work really….your own personal, internal, SM.

It is hard to get past the natural human predilections in favor of cognitive dissonance and other maladies of our species, such as group-think and mass delusion.

But once you do, a whole new vista opens up. Maybe….just maybe….we are evolving.

The fact that the current orthodoxy which says Mann is the best there is….is proof that we are in a de-volved state and sites like this one (WUWT)that push forward…may offer something better.

Self-righteous belief in liberalism/conservatism (take your pick) is no better than self-righteous belief in AGW/NCV (Natural Climate Variability). To accuse the other side of such belief while you yourself wallow in it leaves one to wonder, who among us can argue the opposite side without soiling our own pants?

Patrick Davis said: “I too smell a whitewash here as with Jones and the CRU. Too few people and too many politicians have too much invested in this lie (Revenue stream) to change anything, even in the long term.”

Trust me, Patrick, besides you and me, there are plenty of other chaps (and chapesses) who are fed up with Gavin Schmidt’s taxpayer-funded smirk!!

It may be hard for many to be objective about all this but it’s not hard for me. I’ve researched much of the evidence on both sides and it’s clear to me the case for the AGW thesis is not only weak but in some cases fraudulent. If real evidence is ever brought forward to show that AGW is likely but not necessarily proven, I would switch in an instant to the other side. Until that happens, I am objective enough to see through the scams and know that evidence such as Mann’s tree ring studies are a fraud, or at best the result of a delusional mind.

The point is, skeptics do not have to prove anything. They just have to disprove, or in the very least cast enough doubts about the “proof” that proponents present.
An analogy, if I told you kitchen sinks will fall from the sky on January 25th causing immense damage, you don’t have to “prove” with science that it’s not gunna happen. You will demand MY proof. If you debunk my proof or cast doubt over it, my thesis fails.

Regards “belief”. The IPCC has NEVER had solid evidence that CO2 is a culprit. But they have had the BELIEF that it is. So for 20 years they have been trying to fit whatever ‘evidence” they can find to that belief, including torturing and misrepresenting data.
Climate being one of the most complicated of earthly sciences, proof has been difficult to gather, belief is what’s been driving the issue, solidly supported by politicians and advocacy groups for whatever agendas they pursue. Take away the support by politicians and the whole thing will disappear into the backwaters of science and science blogs.
It will only take one government to fall due to AGW and the rest will pull their heads in very very quickly.

Yes, it is a smirk, and quite bothersome I might add.
It has none of the genuine seriousness that I see on men of science that I have met in real life.
I daresay there is a political taunting in those faces, and some of the debates I have seen between warmists and skeptics, it’s plain to see who comes off with an air of superiority.

I think it’s a fair enough comment to wait until the university releases its report before commenting on the findings. While it’s easy to say they won’t be impartial, I’m sure they’ve carefully weighed up the problems with a whitewash and with a condenmnation, and know the eyes of the world are on them. I say give them time to complete their review and release it, and then start making comments.

However, I think it’s fair enough to do a separate enquiry, as long as it’s not also able to have claims of bias levelled at it. How one would achieve that in the current climate, I do not know.

If it was not for the federal government putting a hold on destroying information, the investigation from the University would have been nothing but a pure whitewash and office shredder hey day.

No guarantee though that it might not still be that. My suspicion is that the University will find only minor problems, and Obama and his inspector generals will decide there is nothing there to investigate, allowing the wholesale destruction of real evidence prior to an honest government taking over in late 2010 or 2012.

The last thing Penn State needs is to be seen sweeping dirt under the rug. Just take a look at what happens when collegiate sports has been found behaving badly or breaking the rules.
Those emails are damaging, and everybody knows it.
I cannot see how Penn State is anything but dismayed over what went on, and when they dig into it like we have, they will surely come away in disgust.
There comes a point when you cannot defend someone’s actions, even though you may have long held them in esteem.

Pamela, I agree there are many in the skeptic camp who are not very skeptical. Some, perhaps too many, are swayed more by their political beliefs than the science. That should not however be surprising since AGW is a political issue more than a scientific one.

I also find those with a science background are more likely to be lukewarmers rather than yelling fraud.

Speaking about interesting people … just watched a press conference from November 23, 2009, where Prof. Schellnhuber said that nature makes it very easy for us to understand global warming, since
“… there is an almost linear correlation between global mean temperature and the amount of CO2, mankind is to release into the atmosphere.”

However, he was completely wrong answering what this global mean temperature currently is.

It’s German language, but watching him educate the audience is already telling.

I hear Mann is a very bright fellow. I wonder if that’s a big part of his problem. Some extremely intelligent criminals don’t bother to take care of very simple evidence for one apparent reason: they think they are so smart and that everyone else is so stupid that nobody is going to catch them.

I get the sense Mann has this sort of smugness of superiority about him.

He has probably also never been put into his place when it comes to battles of intelligence, and he’s too set in his age, ways, and ego to start now.

In any case, he’s certainly not very professional, and he’s certainly not “normal” in dealing with criticism.

If Mann used data that had been deliberately falsified or distorted to obtain federal funds his applications for funds could fall under the False Claims Act.

The False Claims Act provides for treble damages in the event that a false claim is proven.

When false claims have been filed in Medicare cases, federal law permitted any citizen to file a qui tam action on behalf of the federal government. One need not wait for the U.S. Attorney or the Attorney General to commence the action.

If the qui tam action succeeds the government claims the greater part of the judgment, but the person who brought the action also receives a percentage of the judgment.

In Mann’s situation, a qui tam action could be brought against both him and his university. He is their employee and under respondeat superior they may be held liable for his wrongful actions.

Treble damages could result in a handsome judgment, and the university has deep pockets.

Pamela, in general, makes a good case. However, in the CAGW situation a skeptic need only discredit a key part of the argument. One does not need to believe or put forth any theory about climate warming or climate cooling. All one has to do is say (of catastrophic man-caused global warming) it is wrong and here is why.

We can wait till the end of the month. The truth of Climategate and the way it came into the public eye is becoming clearer every day, so that the results of the enquiry whatever they are, will clearly define the position of the university in regard to whether they want clarity in the debate or are just defending their own interests.

You can’t honestly lable the healthy skepticism of (and demands for verifiable evidence for) incredibly grand scientific claims of fact by a relatively small group of (self-affirming) climatolagists – the implications of which stand to fundamentally change our way of life – as “self-righteous belief” in NCV can you?

Surely not.

Failure to accept their (obviously learned) word for the theory of CO2 driven AGW is hardly astounding is it?

Considering the (actual) fact that the variables involved with sub degree C accurate predictions of future planetary climate are adequately numerate and unknown (or misunderstood) to make the attempt almost laughable to any practicioner of hard science. Thank goodness for them their claims will take decades or even a century to bear out huh?

Scratch that. Thank goodness for THE INTERNET and blogs like this one where an honest discourse can take place – particularly considering the loss of any sort of informed, honest and unbiased news media.

There are always anonymous others who are reported: “Others are insisting that these e-mails are not as damaging as they’re being portrayed, and this is just an attempt to discredit the concept of global warming.”

We hear statements like this in the UK. Never trust the words if someone “insists”. What does “insists” mean? Gordon Brown is always insisting. He insists there is enough salt to treat the roads. He insists he has eliminated boom and bust. He insists he is the only person who can get Britain out of recession. Does “insist” mean it is correct?

Insist sounds like a crossroads of knowledge and incest, implying that it is the incest of knowledge, or more appropriately, knowledge that breeds only amongst knowledge of its family. The etymology actually has it coming from the Latin root insistere which can mean various things, but in this sense, I do believe it means to apply oneself to. Personally, having noticed that tendency myself, I prefer my explanation.

To the post above, I wonder how well Mann and his proxy data would hold up in court. They would have some hurdles to clear.

Given the way McIntyre took Mann and Briffa apart, I think that they would insist (my definition) on peer review rather than refutable. Anyhoo, sarcastic rant over, I guess. It was fun while it lasted.

Penn State has the opportunity to show the the Science Method is alive and well. They need to grasp this opportunity for open science and transparency by releasing every Email, letter, raw and adjusted data and the computer codes related to the IPCC, CRU, every member of the “team” and every scientific paper on climate from and to Micheal Mann and his cohorts.
Only then, when all has been revealed, can the truth be seen and judgment made.
Penn State must realize that the world is watching them.

This is definitely something that is quite amazing. Considering the time I have spent on the blogosphere as a avid reader of blog posts regarding the case of AGW either pro or against I have come to the point to see some actions taking place. Indeed climate change is an area that has been hot for the last decade especially in the United States where lots of vested interests are based. These allegations are the culmination of those interests which depict vividly which direction is right and which wrong. History with the help of the Internet will show to future generations who is telling the truth.

PUZZLE:
A professor poses a problem for his students to solve:
(1) The poor have it.
(2) The rich need it.
(3) It is better than intellectual honesty.
(4) It is worse then the CRU team’s manipulation of data.
(5) If you eat it you die.

I hear Mann is a very bright fellow. I wonder if that’s a big part of his problem.”

I get the precise opposite impression. The person he is in the e-mails (and who handles data the way he does) strikes me as rather limited intellectually, which is what gives him a chip on his shoulder regarding any criticism of his work. In fact, everyone else in those mails strikes me as Mann’s superior intellectually – – their problem is that they seem unwilling to confront him directly due to his bullying behavior and their own assumption that Mann must know what he’s talking about (even if they occasionally suspect he doesn’t, especially Briffa and Wigley).

Mann should never have gotten into scientific research in the first place – he’s neither intellectually nor emotionally suited for that. He should have gone into sales, real estate, or something like that.

Now that the station has gotten involved there will be a follow-up. Reporters will dig for dirt—that’s how they get ratings. If they can scoop a story of a cover-up they will—it is likely to go national at least, and will lead to fame and revenues.

They are likely to have people working on the Climategate emails as we speak to be prepared for the continuation. They are smart enough to know that AGW is a hot button with many viewers. Mix it with scandal and you have a potent brew for broadcast news ratings.

I hear Mann is a very bright fellow. I wonder if that’s a big part of his problem. Some extremely intelligent criminals don’t bother to take care of very simple evidence for one apparent reason: they think they are so smart and that everyone else is so stupid that nobody is going to catch them.

I get the sense Mann has this sort of smugness of superiority about him.

He has probably also never been put into his place when it comes to battles of intelligence, and he’s too set in his age, ways, and ego to start now.

In any case, he’s certainly not very professional, and he’s certainly not “normal” in dealing with criticism.

He shows the traits of narcissistic personality disorder. Judging by the emails he cannot cope with criticism very well and cannot understand why on occasions he wasn’t asked to peer review papers.
I think the hockey stick graph shows the up-curve of his own ego and sense of self-importance!

I think this is a lesson for all of us to learn. We may not claim this for ourselves but we should. Belief trumps data. There are those among us skeptics whose hands are in this same cookie jar. The data isn’t there but we believe anyway.

If I believed that belief trumps data, I would not be a scientist .

Can we be as skeptical of our belief in own point of view as we are of AGW? If not, we are no better theorists than the ones being investigated. Do I believe it’s the Sun? The oceans? Land use? Planetary gravity? Atmospheric oscillations? Cozmos’ moon? How well would my theory hold up under such a white hot magnifying glass?

Skepticism is a necessary ingredient in being a scientist.

But AGW skeptics may come from many different theories. There is no reason to have to choose an alternate theory as proven. It is enough to disprove the AGW thesis, and this has been done.

And let us not lose the point: It is the politicization of the AGW theory that is the problem, with the resultant world population sufferings to be imposed by cap and trade, and the ones that have already been imposed by the bio-fuels fiasco.
Does the world care if Reggi poles are no longer in and the standard mode is SU1XSU2XSU3? The same would be true of climate science disputes if they were not impacting on policy and the climatologists had not become politicians.
I

And right where I’m at in central PA, on antenna, WHTM went away after the digital TV transition. Oh well.
———

@ Michael (19:08:33) :

“Clustersource”? That is now a word? Sorry, but when I hear cluster-anything only one time-worn phrase comes to mind, which is descriptive of the IPCC, the Hockey Team (largely post-Climategate), and even the Copenhagen climate conference. Thus I feel “clustersource” should not be used in association with WUWT, if at all.

The mainstream media have grabbed the AGW ball and ran with it just like they did with cold fusion. Millions of dollars were spend to prove that it worked. Now our government and several others have spent millions to prove that something exists viz., man made CO2 causes global warming. There are probably other examples where science was hyped to save the planet or humanity and later on did not pan out. Nuclear energy is an example where the media was used to end US involvement in developing sources of nuclear energy. As far as I know the scientists who promoted cold fusion were never convicted of scientific fraud. By the time that AGW fails to pan out as a viable explanation of climate change the CRU conspirators will be retired.
I do not think that Dr. Mann’s future depends upon being convicted of scientific fraud. If were him I would be worried that an US government accountant will find out that he authorized the use of US government grant money improperly to promote his ideas outside of science. That failing, if it exists, is a lot easier to prove in court.

I have to agree with Aunty Freeze. The grin and the personal attitudes, including paranoia and tantrum, displayed by many of these people suggest the likelihood of narcissistic personality disorder, particularly perhaps in Mann, but also in others involved in the AGW hoax (I include Gore in this “diagnosis”). It is typical of those who believe they cannot be wrong and who essentially adopt fundamentalist positions which are not subject to either question or alteration or even obvious facts. You can often see it on the faces of religious fundamentalists too.
These NPD types also despise, belittle, bully and attempt to destroy anyone who challenges their inadequate work, behaviour and personalities. As such they are also inevitably and fundamentally anti-scientific, since objective science is not the driving force but the preservation of their intensely fragile inner selves. We are not dealing with scientists in some of these cases, we are faced with men whose basic purpose is to remain in control at all costs, whatever that may mean to other people (whose existences are irrelevant). Truth has nothing to do with it.

I went to the TV station’s web site and posted the following. I was surprised to see the moderator approved the posting.
Newt
> posted by: newtlove on 9:17 pm on 01/13/10
This article is rich! If 3 faculty-admins at Penn State can give the world an independent assessment of Michael Mann and his “trick” to “hide the decline,” then I want Penn State to lead the charge, the next time there is a major DoD contractor scandal, to let 3 executives of the offending contractor, i.e., Lockheed Martin, or Boeing, or Northrop Grumman, et cetera, to perform the “independent audit.” The next time there is a $450 hammer or a $600 toilet seat, Penn State needs to be on TV telling us that we can trust the independence of those 3 insiders! Remember when former Boeing CFO, Michael Sears, was sent to prison? Well, I’m sure that Boeing CEO (at the time) Phil Condit would have been able to stand with two other Boeing execs and smile into the camera and say, “Nothing to see here. Move along.” Instead, Boeing paid $615 million in fines to settle charges of defense contracting fraud, escaping criminal charges as a result.
So, if you let Penn State do its own whitewash, then you have to let Boeing, LockMart, NorthGrum, et cetera whitewash, too. After all, Mann’s testimony already forced the “twisty-fluorescent” light bulb on us, and Cap-and-Trade will cost us $Billions. The DoD frauds are looking small compared to the Carbon-Trade scams.

OT but I must try to put an end to this misinformation. If someone were to produce a product and make only one of that product the entire cost of propduction would be reflected in the price of that one unit. So when NASA needed a specially designed hammer or toilet seat and needed only a few, the entire cost is reflected in those few units. If they had produced 1,000,000 of each for the public to purchase the unit cost would be much lower. Always keep in mind figures lie and liars figure. (that’s what makes us skeptics isn’t it?)

Corporations have to be audited by an independent company. Banks are also audited by the Fed. Why isn’t academia the same way? Put a former prosecutor, some experienced investigators and a few scientists on a team and let them investigate.

September 19, 1996: email 0843161829
Two days after the previous exchange, Gary Funkhouser reports on his attempts to obtain anything from the data that could be used to sell the message of climate change:

I really wish I could be more positive about the … material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. … I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have—they just are what they are … I think I’ll have to look for an option where I can let this little story go as it is.

I wonder if he does stay how much of his research money will dry up. Who would want to pay Mann or for that matter any of the clowns caught up in climategate anything to conduct any kind of research. If I was a company I certainly would not want to pay a man who is going to cook the books so that he can get more money out of me.

So regardless of the results of the investigation I believe that both Michael Mann of Penn State, and Chris Jones of CRU will see their funds slowly dry up.

Personally, I don’t consider Cold Fusion to be in the same category as AGW. LENR research continues, and my bet is that within a decade, there will be some working device on the market. It’s big in Japan where they really need cheap and reliable energy sources.

Pons and Fleischman were, imo, honest scientists, and amongst the people who ripped them apart were the special-interest fusion specialists who didn’t want to see their megabuck funding go down the drain. So I see LENR as being more akin to AGW scepticism, and the opposition, to AGW alarmism.

Only time will tell, and I could be wrong of course, but it pains me to see certain comparisons being drawn, just as it pains me to see all AGW sceptics labelled as right-wing Creationists when many, like me, are centrist pro-Evolutionists.

“Economic Stimulus Funds Went to Climategate Scientist”…Mike Mann. The $541,184 grant is for three years and was initiated in June 2009. The tone of the article isn’t even the point…this guy got half a million dollars and for what?

Pamela Gray (20:46:33) : I think this is a lesson for all of us to learn. We may not claim this for ourselves but we should. Belief trumps data. There are those among us skeptics whose hands are in this same cookie jar. The data isn’t there but we believe anyway.

Can we be as skeptical of our belief in own point of view as we are of AGW? If not, we are no better theorists than the ones being investigated. Do I believe it’s the Sun? The oceans? Land use? Planetary gravity? Atmospheric oscillations? Cozmos’ moon? How well would my theory hold up under such a white hot magnifying glass?

I am not trying to:

Bring down western civilization
Establish UN control over the world economy
Line my own pocket like UN IPCC chief Pachauri and Al Gore
While acting to subvert scientific checks and balances

I think that it is a mistake to put the arsonist and the fireman on the same moral plain.

I presume that Dr. Mann must receive the full advantage of reasonable doubt in the case of this investigation. In order for censure, the results of his research must be proved false beyond any reasonable doubt and even if that be the case, I assume it must also be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that Dr. Mann knew his research was defective.

I am not confident that, even in the light of the Climategate files, sufficient evidence exists to convict him on these grounds. There may, however, be some evidence of unethical conduct on his part if those illegally obtained files are deemed as admissible evidence in this proceeding.

When it comes our accepting his work in preference to earlier studies, I believe Dr. Mann must show beyond any reasonable doubt that his results are correct. I do not think he can do that.

Regarding $600 toilet seats. If I remember correctly, it was revealed some years ago that many of these overpriced government items were actually “padding” added to other projects in order to cover up certain “black programs” such as the stealth bomber. The idea was to spread the true cost around the entire federal budget in order to keep the vital projects secret. If there is no line item for “stealth bomber” no reporter is going to snoop around to find out more. Or am I just remembering the plot to some Hollywood spy fantasy?

Regarding $600 toilet seats. If I remember correctly, it was revealed some years ago that many of these overpriced government items were actually “padding” added to other projects in order to cover up certain “black programs” such as the stealth bomber.

Remember the line from one of those sci-fi movies, where the enor5mous secret underground UFO research labs are shown to a visitor, who asked, “Where did all the money come for this?” and the general replied, “You don’t think we really paid $600 for hammers, do you?”

It is clear to me that the battle will be lost or won based on getting accurate measurements of specific humidity above the 850 hPa. If the data shows that the specific humidity either remains constant or declines as CO2 continues to increase then the Man(n) made AGW hypothesis is completely discredited. In a peer-reviewed journal, Patltridge 2009, comes to the conclusion that the National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP) reanalysis data on tropospheric humidity for the period 1973 to 2007 indicates that the specific humidity above 850 hPa has declined as both CO2 and the global temperature anomaly went up. There are caveats that the quality of the data may not be as good as desired. He did pick a large subset of the available data because that subset (“latitudes between 50° S and 50° N and to altitudes at which the zonal-average specific humidity is greater than 0.5 g/kg”) is most likely to be good.

Why is this important? Gray sums this up in his 2009 paper, “Climate Change: Driven by the Ocean not Human Activity”

“Hansen’s early GISS model assumed that a doubling of CO2 would cause the upper tropospheric RH [Relative Humidity] not just to stay constant but to actually increase. His assumed upper tropospheric increase of water vapor (q) for a doubling of CO2 led to a water vapor increase (Δq) in the upper troposphere of as much as an extremely unlikely 50 percent. These large vapor increases caused Hansen to require that his model have a tropical (30oN-30oS) upper tropospheric warming for a doubling of CO2 of as much as 7oC (Figure 10). A 7oC warming at the upper level emission level is equivalent to a 23 W/m2 enhancement of OLR [Outgoing (into space) Longwave Radiation] for a doubling of CO2 forcing of only 3.7 W/m2. No wonder Hansen got such high values of global warming for a doubling of CO2. This logically followed from his extremely high and unrealistic water vapor assumptions.”

“Self-righteous belief in liberalism/conservatism (take your pick) is no better than self-righteous belief in AGW/NCV (Natural Climate Variability). To accuse the other side of such belief while you yourself wallow in it leaves one to wonder, who among us can argue the opposite side without soiling our own pants?”

Al Gore says the debate is over and that no serious scientist disagrees with AGW. Obviously that’s baloney. I would say there hasn’t even been a real open public debate between scientists on both sides of the issue. I think many of us on the skeptic side just want that debate to happen. But when the warmers call for skeptics to be jailed for speaking their minds we get angry. Shouldn’t we get angry with people who want not only to force their cap and trade plans on us but also want to suppress free speech.

Can his PhD be stripped from him? If so, what would he have to have done in order for that to happen?

Kay,
This would be highly unlikely to happen, unless it was proven that his dissertation contained blatant plagiarism or some other egregious form of academic dishonesty, such as fabricating data. Mann would have had get all of that by his dissertation supervisor and other faculty readers, perhaps even a reader external to Yale. Not impossible, but very improbable IMO, because this process is usually a more rigorous (if not downright nasty) form of peer-review as it reflects more directly on the supervisors and readers.

However, I was very curious to know what exactly Prof. Mann had researched for his Ph.D. Below I have copied his dissertaton abstract, available from the ProQuest (formerly University Microfilms) database. What strikes me about the abstract is the total absence of the words “tree rings” or paleo-anything, or even “carbon dioxide”. I am left to wonder how and why Mann made the leap from oceans to dendrochronology so quickly, and with such meteoric success!

Even though I am not a scientist, I am by nature a skeptical person and I have toiled long in the Ph.D. universe. And so, this “divergence” of Mann’s research interests ca. 1998 strikes as somewhat odd. I’m sure others here are better informed about Prof. Mann’s research, past and present. When did he start looking at tree-rings? What in fact are the areas of overlap between studying the oceans and trees? Was it his signal-processing techniques? Inquiring humanists want to know!

Abstract (Summary)
A combination of empirical data analysis techniques and simplified coupled ocean-atmosphere modeling is applied to investigate empirical and theoretical characteristics of organized decadal-to-century timescale climate variability. A multivariate time series methodology for isolating and reconstructing significant quasi-oscillatory spatiotemporal signals in empirical climate data is developed and applied to a variety of instrumental and high-quality long-term climate proxy datasets. A simplified model of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system is developed to investigate dynamical mechanisms which may be important in describing observed signals.

The empirical analyses demonstrate consistent evidence for organized modes of large-scale climatic variability on interdecadal (15-30 year) and century (60-100 year) timescales. The interdecadal mode exhibits a pattern dominated by inter-related variations in atmospheric circulation and surface temperature in the Pacific which bears resemblance to a delayed-oscillator mode observed in previous coupled ocean-atmosphere general circulation model (GCM) experiments. The century-scale mode shows a pattern of high-amplitude variability in the polar North Atlantic, and North Atlantic signature in both temperature and inferred atmospheric circulation anomalies bearing some similarity to a century-scale signal related to the ocean thermohaline circulation which has been isolated in another coupled model study.

The simplified theoretical model used to investigate possible dynamical mechanisms describes the zonally-averaged thermohaline and wind-driven circulation of an idealized global ocean. The effects of horizontal gyre circulations, atmospheric responses to ocean surface temperature changes, and the delayed response of gyre circulation variations to changes in atmospheric windstress are each parameterized. The internal dynamics of the model is investigated by long stochastically forced integrations. In the absence of a gyre dynamics representation, a 200-300 year oscillation is isolated that is associated with advection of salinity and temperature anomalies by the meridional overturning. When gyre-scale dynamics are parameterized, a 70-100 year oscillation that is more consistent with observed century timescale climate oscillations is isolated, involving a combination of meridional overturning and gyre-scale dynamics. When the delayed response of gyres variations to wind variations is accounted for, modes with decadal (10-20 year) timescales are identified, somewhat similarity to the delayed-oscillator mode described earlier.

” Pamela Gray (21:06:46) :
Self-righteous belief in liberalism/conservatism (take your pick) is no better than self-righteous belief in AGW/NCV (Natural Climate Variability). To accuse the other side of such belief while you yourself wallow in it leaves one to wonder, who among us can argue the opposite side without soiling our own pants? ”

Please consider the contrast of the following:
1) the acceptance of an idea without a provable basis in reality (belief)
2) the establishing of an idea by use of man’s rational capacity backed by evidence of reality that can be independently verified (scientific proof)

I find that it is fruitless and confusing to use belief in any scientific discussion. IMHO it is also just as fruitless and confusing and dangerous to use belief in political or social discussions. Man is part of reality so discussions on how we govern ourselves or organize society should be based only on scientific proof scenarios, not beliefs.

Hey Mike, Thanks for the post; it was interesting reading. Your post is an example of why I am addicted to WUWT.

Was your post for general information, or were you making a point that relates to my 0820 hrs post?

A little of both actually. My response was that the facts, and specifically the data, will decide the issue of AGW. I was providing the scentific counterpoint to the moral argument that Pamela was making; we are on the up-and-up and there is a clear way forward based on the data.

When I first started looking into AGW it was with a completely open mind. “There is a lot of smoke, I better go see how big the fire is” sums up my thinking at that time. But the more I looked the more incredulous I became. After reading “Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres” by Dr. Miskolczi http://www.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf
I became convinced that CO2 induced global warming was impossible. BTW, I caution you that it is not a light read. The physics is pretty thick. But after several readings and a Saturday spent with a white-board walking through the math for myself, I became convinced.

Is the Gray that wrote “Climate Change: Driven by the Ocean not Human Activity” related to Pamela Gray?

No, that would be William M. Gray. Sorry, I wasn’t trying to be funny.

Sorry, I am a little confused. I understand that I am a neophyte when it comes to the science and players that are referred to on this site. Thanks Mike, markm

Can his PhD be stripped from him? If so, what would he have to have done in order for that to happen?

“Kay,
This would be highly unlikely to happen, unless it was proven that his dissertation contained blatant plagiarism or some other egregious form of academic dishonesty, such as fabricating data. Mann would have had get all of that by his dissertation supervisor and other faculty readers, perhaps even a reader external to Yale. Not impossible, but very improbable IMO, because this process is usually a more rigorous (if not downright nasty) form of peer-review as it reflects more directly on the supervisors and readers.”

Sharon, thanks for that. I’m not a PhD so I don’t know how that process works.

Interesting about his dissertation as well. There’s not just the “divergence” of his interest in 1998…he published MBH the same year he received his PhD…as the lead author. How did he manage that? That’s a heck of a leap to acquire that much expertise in such a short time.

This may be an unfair assessment considering I’m not a scientist, but it’s almost as though the research in MBH was not his own.

“Economic Stimulus Funds Went to Climategate Scientist”…Mike Mann. The $541,184 grant is for three years and was initiated in June 2009. The tone of the article isn’t even the point…this guy got half a million dollars and for what?

You wrote:
“My response was that the facts, and specifically the data, will decide the issue of AGW. I was providing the scentific counterpoint to the moral argument that Pamela was making; we are on the up-and-up and there is a clear way forward based on the data.”

Hey Mike,
We must remember that a little political marketing goes along way. The acceptance of AGW theory almost worked because of a succesful political marketing campaign.

John Whitman (10:49:26) wrote:
“IMHO it is also just as fruitless and confusing and dangerous to use belief in political or social discussions. Man is part of reality so discussions on how we govern ourselves or organize society should be based only on scientific proof scenarios, not beliefs.”

Hey John,
Societal norms are not based on scientific proof alone. We have political structures to take decisions which don’t have scientific data that declares a clearcut path; these decisions become subjective at one point.

Most societies have their most basic tenants based on beliefs; these beliefs are somewhat parallel to the ten commandments. “Thou shall not murder” is a belief. If we were purely science based, murder would be a negative act for the murdered, and a positive act for the murderer, and nothing more. Natural law, or creator granted rights, are based on a belief structure, otherwise the norm would be: “the man with the gold, rules.”

I know my examples are simple ones; however, most free societies start with a belief structure that makes murder a grievous offense. Because of our belief structure, killing is only allowed in self defense, declared war, or after due process of the law has been accomplished. Subjective beliefs.

Politicians have to make decisions based on “shades of gray”. Another simple example: if a little socialism is a good thing, is lots of socialism a better thing? The definition of “a little socialism” is subjective. Political science is not a “hard” science.

Public education is required for a free market or prosporuous society to succeed. Would it be counter productive to increases taxes to confiscatory levels in order to give all humans a free PHD education, regardless of individual capability? What exactly is the tipping point? Subjective…

We need politicians to make subjective decisions; too bad they don’t rely more on objectivity and science, and less on subjective feelings.

The $789 billion economic stimulus bill that was expedited through the House and Senate and negotiated in a joint conference committee February 12 retains some funding for Earth observation and climate science programs: $170 million for NOAA to address “critical gaps in climate modeling and establish climate data records for continuing research into the cause, effects and ways to mitigate climate change,” and a portion of $400 million for NASA for Earth observations from satellites.

I don’t know how all this panned out wrt to specific grants, but I’d guess Mann’s half-mill was just a small part of the overall disbursement of funds to climate scientists in the last year. The results of all that “research” and all those funds are yet to come – there should be a lot of it.

Bill Parsons,
“I don’t know how all this panned out wrt to specific grants, but I’d guess Mann’s half-mill was just a small part of the overall disbursement of funds to climate scientists in the last year. The resuolts of all that “research” and all those funds are yet to come – there should be a lot of it.”

Possibly more entertaining would be to see if any of this climate stimulus funding went to nonexistent congressional districts or zip codes. This would provide open and shut fraud evidence.

You wrote: “My response was that the facts, and specifically the data, will decide the issue of AGW. I was providing the scentific counterpoint to the moral argument that Pamela was making; we are on the up-and-up and there is a clear way forward based on the data.”

Hey Mike, We must remember that a little political marketing goes along way. The acceptance of AGW theory almost worked because of a succesful political marketing campaign.

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” (Edmund Burke)

Anthony and his cadre of WUWT moderators and supporters are good men and women who chose to do something.

How old is Mann. Isn’t he like in his mid 40’s? Did he just get his PhD in ’98? What took him so long? Mid 30’s is kind of late for PhD in science unless he took a detour early on. Did he fail out? Have to restart or retake classes? Did he have to change dissertation directors frequently?

Here is the first paragraph from the article that Ron posted the URL for:

“Washington, DC – In the face of rising unemployment and record-breaking deficits, policy experts at the National Center for Public Policy Research are criticizing the Obama Administration for awarding a half million dollar grant from the economic stimulus package to Penn State Professor Michael Mann, a key figure in the Climategate controversy.”

What you describe regarding political and social processes that exist as essentially subjective is unfortunately virtually true. But to the extent that citizens are rational/scientifically oriented then a country’s governmet and society can have some scientificlly demostratable basis and likely will have. On the contrary countries wholly lacking such citizens are going to have a totally subjective base for their gov’ts and society.

>Tom in Florida (06:20:52) :
> > Newt Love (05:30:33) : ” a $450 hammer or a $600 toilet seat”
OT but I must try to put an end to this misinformation.

1. I worked at Lockheed on the P-3 Orion program when the $600 toilet seat was invented. The long-range subchaser P-3 stayed on-station for days. Rotating crews manned it. Just in case the pilots had to take defensive maneuvers when somebody was on the toilet, they wanted a “seat” that would seal, such that, even in the case of a barrel-roll, the person strapped in on the toilet would not get their cheeks wet. Challenge: design, build and manufacture that for less than $600! Lockheed was the LOW Bidder!
2. The post I made was NOT about the hammer or toilet seat. Look up “cultural iconography” and learn. It doesn’t matter if Mary had a little lamb; people know of the mythology. It doesn’t matter If Luke Skywalker is real; we know how to “use The Force.” It doesn’t matter if the hammer was $450 (or not) or the toilette seat was… It’s broadly used, even as fiction, and so is fair game to illustrate a point.
3. You, by rehashing old news from two decades ago, have diverted the discussion from “Penn State can either bring in outside experts, or they can support DoD contractors having three of their own executives perform ‘independent audit’ of their scandalous behaviors.”
Thanks for picking a nit that changed the subject.
Newt
Newt Love (my real name) newtlove.com
Aerospace Technical Fellow, Modeling, Simulation and Analysis

” Pamela Gray (21:06:46) :Self-righteous belief in liberalism/conservatism (take your pick) is no better than self-righteous belief in AGW/NCV (Natural Climate Variability). To accuse the other side of such belief while you yourself wallow in it leaves one to wonder, who among us can argue the opposite side without soiling our own pants? ”

Please consider the contrast of the following:
1) the acceptance of an idea without a provable basis in reality (belief)
2) the establishing of an idea by use of man’s rational capacity backed by evidence of reality that can be independently verified (scientific proof)

I find that it is fruitless and confusing to use belief in any scientific discussion. IMHO it is also just as fruitless and confusing and dangerous to use belief in political or social discussions. Man is part of reality so discussions on how we govern ourselves or organize society should be based only on scientific proof scenarios, not beliefs.

Regarding “1) the acceptance of an idea without a provable basis in reality (belief)”: That’s only one of the dictionary definitions of it. Pamela was not using the definition you provided, but rather #1 below (boldfaced), found at http://www.dictionary.net/belief :

BELIEF. The conviction of the mind, arising from evidence received, or from information derived, not from actual perception by our senses, but from. the relation or information of others who have had the means of acquiring actual knowledge of the facts and in whose qualifications for acquiring that knowledge, and retaining it, and afterwards in communicating it, we can place confidence. ” Without recurring to the books of metaphysicians’ “says Chief Justice Tilghman, 4 Serg. & Rawle, 137, “let any man of plain common sense, examine the operations of, his own mind, he will assuredly find that on different subjects his belief is different. I have a firm belief that, the moon revolves round the earth. I may believe, too, that there are mountains and valleys in the moon; but this belief is not so strong, because the evidence is weaker.”

1. Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses. [1913 Webster]

Belief admits of all degrees, from the slightest suspicion to the fullest assurance. –Reid. [1913 Webster]

2. (Theol.) A persuasion of the truths of religion; faith. [1913 Webster]

No man can attain [to] belief by the bare contemplation of heaven and earth. –Hooker. [1913 Webster]

3. The thing believed; the object of belief. [1913 Webster]

Superstitious prophecies are not only the belief of fools, but the talk sometimes of wise men. –Bacon. [1913 Webster]

4. A tenet, or the body of tenets, held by the advocates of any class of views; doctrine; creed. [1913 Webster]

In the heat of persecution to which Christian belief was subject upon its first promulgation. –Hooker. [1913 Webster]

Second, Pamela’s focus was on condemning “self-righteous” argumentation — I boldfaced those words in her quote to make her intent plain. (Her phrase “such belief” refers to the quality or “suchness” of the belief — i.e., to its self-righteousness.)

“What you describe regarding political and social processes that exist as essentially subjective is unfortunately virtually true. But to the extent that citizens are rational/scientifically oriented then a country’s governmet and society can have some scientificlly demostratable basis and likely will have. On the contrary countries wholly lacking such citizens are going to have a totally subjective base for their gov’ts and society.”

I agree with your belief (we are splitting hairs here).

Societies that use hard data and fact to base decisions regarding their governance and economic system are the best societies. Some basic decisions of right and wrong will still be decided by belief. Discrimination is wrong because we are all equal. Murder is wrong because it discrimates against innocent life. Those are beliefs.

The decreasing of anthropeginic CO2 should be decided by scientific data that is peer reviewed and widely dissiminated. An agenda or belief system does not belong in this process.

Miachael Larkin (06:38:39)
Thank you for your comments. Perhaps Cold fusion not a good example. I am sure that you might be able to identfy another. My point is that the mainstream media hyped cold fusion prematurely and as a result government funding answered with more money for cold fusion research. I fear that AGW has suffered the same fate.

“However, I was very curious to know what exactly Prof. Mann had researched for his Ph.D. Below I have copied his dissertaton abstract, available from the ProQuest (formerly University Microfilms) database. What strikes me about the abstract is the total absence of the words “tree rings” or paleo-anything, or even “carbon dioxide”. I am left to wonder how and why Mann made the leap from oceans to dendrochronology so quickly, and with such meteoric success!

Even though I am not a scientist, I am by nature a skeptical person and I have toiled long in the Ph.D. universe. And so, this “divergence” of Mann’s research interests ca. 1998 strikes as somewhat odd. I’m sure others here are better informed about Prof. Mann’s research, past and present. When did he start looking at tree-rings? What in fact are the areas of overlap between studying the oceans and trees? Was it his signal-processing techniques? Inquiring humanists want to know!”

I’ve read a summary of Mann’s PhD dissertation in Wegman’s report. To me it seems that the connection between his dissertation and his later work, starting with MBH98, is – believe it or not – his use of PCA (Principal Component Analysis) and statistical data handling generally. My guess, based on my own experience with PhD dissertations and the papers you often write with others in the same group while working on your dissertation, is that – believe it or not – Mann was the “resident statistical expert” in that particular group. So in his own dissertation he worked a lot with PCA, his co-authors in MBH98 essentially approached him with, “hey Mike, you did a great job finding those signals with PCA in your dissertation. We have tons of proxy data we can’t seem to find any signal in, maybe you can give it a try?” or something like that. That is my guess.

So Mann’s supposed expertise, as seen by his colleagues, seems to be the handling of data – whether from proxies or from ocean circulation data or whatever – in order to squeeze trends and signals out of them. I think it’s obvious that most of the other Team members understand statistics even less than he does, so his own handling of data wasn’t seriously challenged. And then what happens? Steve McIntyre shows up and indirectly implying that Mann is incompetent in that precise supposed expertise. As for the “meteoric success”, I think MBH98 was just the paper that a lot of people were waiting for.

I have no direct confirmation for any of that, this is just my interpretation of what’s going on. If correct, what’s at stake is not only his career, but also his whole standing in the community – and even his self-image, since if he’s incompetent in data handling, what then does he know? I might feel sorry for him if he hadn’t shown himself to be such a petty and vicious individual.

@ Peter B (04:12:49) : I’ve read a summary of Mann’s PhD dissertation in Wegman’s report. To me it seems that the connection between his dissertation and his later work, starting with MBH98, is – believe it or not – his use of PCA (Principal Component Analysis) and statistical data handling generally. My guess, based on my own experience with PhD dissertations and the papers you often write with others in the same group while working on your dissertation, is that – believe it or not – Mann was the “resident statistical expert” in that particular group. So in his own dissertation he worked a lot with PCA, his co-authors in MBH98 essentially approached him with, “hey Mike, you did a great job finding those signals with PCA in your dissertation. We have tons of proxy data we can’t seem to find any signal in, maybe you can give it a try?” or something like that. That is my guess.

You’ve got to be kidding. But as a non-scientist, non-PhD, could someone tell me if it’s standard practice for a junior scientist (after all, he’d just gotten his PhD) to end up as a lead author so quickly?

@I think it’s obvious that most of the other Team members understand statistics even less than he does, so his own handling of data wasn’t seriously challenged. And then what happens? Steve McIntyre shows up and indirectly implying that Mann is incompetent in that precise supposed expertise.

I got the impression that even some of his colleagues questioned his statistical know-how, but since they felt he was more adept than they were, they let it go.

How old is Mann. Isn’t he like in his mid 40’s? Did he just get his PhD in ‘98? What took him so long? Mid 30’s is kind of late for PhD in science unless he took a detour early on. Did he fail out? Have to restart or retake classes? Did he have to change dissertation directors frequently?

*****************************************************

Actually, Mann’s graduate school career is (statistically-speaking!) quite average. You can look up the numbers. The annual reports for the Survey of Earned Doctorates is available at the NSF website. In 1998, the median, not mean, time to degree in the physical sciences was about 8 years. The median age for males receiving a Ph.D. in the physical sciences was about 34 yo.

According Mann’s CV, which is posted on his Penn State site, he began his graduate studies around 1989, the year he received his bachelor’s from Berkeley (at age 23-24, btw) and defended his dissertation in 1996. This means that it took him about 7 years to complete the program. The Ph.D. was not conferred until 1998, because he did not submit the final copy of the dissertation to Yale until that year. This time lag is not, in and of itself, unusual either. There are all sorts of reasons that can delay the submission of the final copy of the dissertation: revisions, work, family issues, etc. Really, there is nothing unusual about this timeline.

What I find somewhat extraordinary, however, is that Mann was not “officially” a Ph.D. until 1998, but from 1996 to 1998, held a post-doc at the DOE while ABD (the dreaded All But Degree status). Post-docs can typically begin their appointments during the provisional period between defense and degree conferral, with the understanding that there is sometimes a few months delay between these events. Was Mann given special consideration at the DOE? I am not familiar with DOE post-doc rules to say, but I do wonder. At any rate, he then moved to several temporary academic positions before landing at UVA.

I imagine that Mann’s academic backstory and the history of his collaborations will shed a lot of light on the makings of Climategate.

Kay (06:00:58) : “You’ve got to be kidding. But as a non-scientist, non-PhD, could someone tell me if it’s standard practice for a junior scientist (after all, he’d just gotten his PhD) to end up as a lead author so quickly?”

Lead author of articles generally? It’s standard. Lead author of an IPCC report chapter – I’d say it’s not standard at all, and in Mann’s case it happened because the IPCC folks just loved MBH98 as it told them exactly what they wanted to here. They loved the hockey stick, so Mann became a star overnight. That the paper was essentially bogus is something they didn’t even think about.

“Why, oh why, didn’t they use statisticians to check their work?”

I guess they thought they didn’t have to, since they (or Mann) already knew everything and mere statisticians know nothing of “climate science”, so what do they know?

I think it’s really as simple as this: a guy who’s technically incompetent – Mann – got results that satisfied an ideological-political need that was up in the air (“we got to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”). His hockey stick “proved with data” what they “knew to be true” – that the recent warming was “unprecedented in the last 1000 years”. So they did not even think of checking his work statistically, internally or externally. Until Steve McIntyre got interested.

@ Peter B (06:31:39) : I think it’s really as simple as this: a guy who’s technically incompetent – Mann – got results that satisfied an ideological-political need that was up in the air (“we got to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”). His hockey stick “proved with data” what they “knew to be true” – that the recent warming was “unprecedented in the last 1000 years”. So they did not even think of checking his work statistically, internally or externally. Until Steve McIntyre got interested.

Thanks, Peter. I think you hit the nail on the head.

@Lead author of articles generally? It’s standard.

Really? I’d have thought that the most senior scientist got top billing. Interesting.

Taking SEVEN years to get his PhD is academically unusual. 7 years marks the time when classes you took the first year start to ‘disappear’ from your transcript. IOW, if you don’t have that PhD by year 7 you have to start retaking classes. If he didn’t get his PhD until 98 that would be NINE years from 89. Did he have to retake any classes? Inquiring minds/etc.

Kay (06:00:58) :
You’ve got to be kidding. But as a non-scientist, non-PhD, could someone tell me if it’s standard practice for a junior scientist (after all, he’d just gotten his PhD) to end up as a lead author so quickly?

Kay, in my experience there’s various methods to determine lead author, following this order.

1. The person who receives (or supplies) the funding is first.
2. The originator of the concept or idea may also be first. Usually this person requests others with appropriate expertise and/or credibility. It is a decision between them.
3. Sometimes during the development of the research it becomes apparent that one facet of the project is taking considerably more time and that person, by mutual consent, is given lead.
4. In the case of the inclusion of lesser rank or non-PhD authors, the one with the highest rank.

Most of the time the authors know, or know of each other prior to cooperation. In a particular field, egotists develop a reputation, and others would not ask he/she to participate knowing they would demand lead authorship. IMHO, Mann falls into both groups 1 and 4.

Also, in my field, it was implicitly understood that a statistician within the University would be consulted and usually included as an author. That was 25 yrs ago. Things have changed.

Taking SEVEN years to get his PhD is academically unusual. 7 years marks the time when classes you took the first year start to ‘disappear’ from your transcript. IOW, if you don’t have that PhD by year 7 you have to start retaking classes. If he didn’t get his PhD until 98 that would be NINE years from 89.

Mom2girls, please understand that the requirements and organization of Ph.D. programs is quite unlike undergraduate study. Credit hours, grade-point averages, transcripts, these things matter very little. What matters is time spent in the labs or the libraries doing research and making one’s faculty advisers happy. Seven years from bachelor’s to Ph.D. is not unusual at all. It really does take that long. And this process almost never goes smoothly. There are any number of facors working against the graduate student at all stages, even in the revision stage.

Mann defended his dissertation 6-7 years after beginning his graduate program at Yale. That means he had accomplished enough research and put it into a draft form that satisfied his faculty advisers that he had fulfilled the major requirement for the Ph.D. degree, the dissertation. There would have been no question of “retaking” classes at that point, but rather making any necessary revisions to the draft and then putting it into final form to be deposited with Yale. By passing his dissertation defense in 1996, Mann *technically* became a Ph.D., but the actual degree was not awarded by Yale until he submitted his dissertation to the university. As I said above, this time lag isn’t unusual either, only that Mann was allowed to assume a post-doctoral position without the “degree in hand” for an unspecific period of time, somewhere I’m guessing between 10 to 24 months.

I am not defending Mann here, but only trying to show that his graduate career was, in terms of time to degree, typical. If I still have not convinced you, please go to the NSF website to look up the relevant statistics compiled from the Survey of Earned Doctorates, or check out the requirements for Yale’s Ph.D. programs in physics, geophysics, applied math., or indeed for any Ph.D. program at a top-tier American university.

Kay (06:00:58) :
You’ve got to be kidding. But as a non-scientist, non-PhD, could someone tell me if it’s standard practice for a junior scientist (after all, he’d just gotten his PhD) to end up as a lead author so quickly?

Kay, in my experience there’s various methods to determine lead author, following this order.

1. The person who receives (or supplies) the funding is first.
2. The originator of the concept or idea may also be first. Usually this person requests others with appropriate expertise and/or credibility. It is a decision between them.
3. Sometimes during the development of the research it becomes apparent that one facet of the project is taking considerably more time and that person, by mutual consent, is given lead.
4. In the case of the inclusion of lesser rank or non-PhD authors, the one with the highest rank.

Most of the time the authors know, or know of each other prior to cooperation. In a particular field, egotists develop a reputation, and others would not ask he/she to participate knowing they would demand lead authorship. IMHO, Mann falls into both groups 1 and 4.

Also, in my field, it was implicitly understood that a statistician within the University would be consulted and usually included as an author. That was 25 yrs ago. Things have changed.

Tim, thank you for your response. That’s much clearer. Point 1 I can understand–the person bringing the money gets the credit. Fair enough. #2 also makes sense. It’s #4 I struggle with. Maybe it’s just my particular area and as I said I’m not a scientist, but a lesser ranked person would never appear before a more experienced person on even the most trivial of publications. Of course, the higher ups usually have advanced degrees, but that doesn’t mean they actually did the work. They get the credit for something they were only minimally involved in. The pecking order is clearly defined and the elitism is rampant.

No offense intended to anyone–just a layperson’s view here, but I don’t have much respect for PhD’s and Mann’s behavior illustrates why. The fact that you can earn one doesn’t mean diddly in the real world. Many of them are very bright but aren’t very smart, IMO. Most of them can’t find the door without a map and yet they get credit for everything even though they can’t string two sentences together coherently.

Dear Kay,
No offense taken. Please know that I am as appalled as you are at Mann and the Hockey Team’s behavior. It saddens me that the general public’s perception of Ph.D.s, and scientists in particular, is too often shaped by revelations about their bad behavior and not by their positive contributions, which far outnumber instances of corruption and deception.

However, Climategate was bound to happen sooner or later, I think. Bad science and badly behaving scientists are always exposed when there is openess in the research process, something The Team fought long and hard to prevent. Climategate reveals once again that a mixture of science, politics, and celebrity is a very dangerous brew. But, Climategate also shows that the standards of good scientific and academic practices are being upheld.

So, there is hope, Kay, even for absent-minded Ph.D.s. They need love too!

One look is worth a thousand reports. Go outside. In the Northern Hemisphere where it is currently winter it is colder than last year and the year before that. Actually, colder than it’s been in a long time.
Before man figured out that the Earth is not the center of the universe, technically skilled people were well paid (by the church) to build mechanical models that depicted crazy planetary motions to explain what people were actually seeing…and Galileo was ex communicated for speaking the truth.
All one needs is a basic education in physics to know that the only thing man made about AGW is the data. The science only gets difficult to explain/understand when someone tries to get a predetermined outcome from an “un cooperative” data set.
When will the Thermostasi stop saying “just because it’s getting colder doesn”t mean it’s not getting hotter”. If I’d known that this was the level of logic they deal in I could have saved us all alot of trouble over the last several years with this statement. “Just because it”s getting hotter doesn”t mean it”s not getting colder”
Seriously….How much colder does it need to get and for how long? Will I need to send postcards from my San Fernando Valley backyard while hunting Polar Bears to put an end to this stupidity?
How intelligent does one need to be to realize that inputting garbage values can only output garbage values? How can anyone argue their case without validated data? Why does this whole thing have the stench of religious dogma and the Big Lie Theory?
And why are there so many supposedly educated people that can’t seem to grasp such a scientifically simple subject? Maybe if our teachers stopped indoctrinating our youth with UN propaganda…stopped telling us to drug our boys for acting like boys… spent more time teaching and less time molesting …and spent less time complaining that they make less than half what a prison guard makes with overtime…maybe then there would be enough intelligence and critical thinking ability in our college grads to approach this subject with science instead of irrational fundamentalism.
And if all else fails…keep it simple…like this:
I’m cold…Global Warming? Really? You promise? Then BRING IT ON!..[snip]..